OCR Text |
Show Tan Qrtiefe B"GUQBoim sf iro Between now and Novem -ber, considerable debate and controversy will surround a proposed amendment which would make some extensive changes in the revenue and al, employee representation or welfare purposes. ' 3. Exempt livestock hew in the State. w 4. Clarify the exemptw for irrigation. 5. Allow the Legislate, to exempt or abate Uj,, on primary residences and tangible personal proper), in whole or in part. 6. Remove the pres. $3,000 limitation on the ex emption provided to disabled veterans. 7. Allow local government to share their tax revenue with other local units. 8. Eliminate the present 75 limitation on the pr0. portion of the school pro" gram that could be financed by the State. 9. Make other changesde. signed to clarify meanings eliminate outdated materia thus making the tax article easier to read and under, stand. taxation article of the state constitutio. Proponents of the change claim that the amended article ar-ticle will retain necessary safeguards while providing the flexibility that the Legislature Legis-lature requires to develop a tax policy which will meet the future needs of the State. Opponents contend that the proposed amendment would eliminate many of the safeguards safe-guards contained in the pres -ent constitution and would place too much power in the hands of the Legislature. They object to the fact that all of the changes are submitted sub-mitted in a single package, forcing the voters either to approve or reject all of the changes at one time. Changes are: 1. Modify local tax exemption ex-emption provisions to allow the taxation ofproperty owned own-ed by cities, towns, special districts, etc., If such property prop-erty is located outside the geographic boundaries. 2. Broaden the nonprofit exemption to include property prop-erty which is used for religious, reli-gious, charitable, education - |